At the end of the day, the overwhelming emotion we were left with was hope. Hope for a future where all kids can grow up with the simple right to love whomever they love and have that love recognized.
Marriage in the Bible was much more about property rights, ensuring paternity of offspring, succession, political alliances and tribal stability than it was about companionship, mutual support and affection as we think of marriage today.
If no reliable evidence at all were required to justify legislative classifications in constitutional cases, the judiciary would be transformed from a co-ordinate branch into a meaningless rubber stamp. The Framers neither intended nor envisioned that role for an institution they designated to serve as the "[bulwark] of a limited Constitution."
It's likely that Justices Thomas and Alito agreed with the basic sentiments Scalia seemed to be expressing -- a sense of pride, even, that passionate religious opposition to same-sex marriage rang out loudly, at the same time that conservatives across the country continue to craft "religious freedom" laws to blunt LGBT equality in the states.
There are consequences to waiting. Couples are denied their rights, which has ramifications from child custody to driver licenses to death certificates. Look at what the status quo means: Gay couples separated in hospitals. Losing their life savings when one passes away. Having a marriage license revoked when they cross state lines.
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, it will once again be a matter of life or death. Specifically, the Justices will be considering a morbid potpourri of death penalty issues arising out of the controversy over the drugs that states use to put people to death.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments about whether or not I have the right to marry a person of my choosing irrespective of whether or not they are "male" or "female."
You don't like gay marriage? Fine. Don't get gay-married. But if you want to have a business and operate in the public sphere, then you've got to treat all your fellow citizens equally. Even better would be to treat each of them as you would wish to be treated. That's a rule that should sound familiar to someone as knowledgeable of the New Testament as Bobby Jindal.
Gary Hall, the dean of the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., spoke this morning at the Unite for Marriage rally on the steps of the Supreme Cour...
It's becoming hard to remember how difficult the struggle was just a few years ago. America today is in a very different place from 2004, when voters in 13 states amended their state constitutions to exclude us from marriage.
If not by 2016, the GOP will eventually give up the fight they've long been losing. Same-sex marriage will be law of the land, absent from party platforms. It will simply become a non-issue -- and soon. But with this progress brings two significant, if overlooked, consequences.
It's time to decide what the next 10, 20, 50 years of the LGBT movement look like. Leading up to the Supreme Court hearing and the June ruling on marriage, we have an opportunity to cast a vision for a more fair, equitable and just society.
Those of us with our eyes hopeful on the Supreme Court today must realize that the future of LGBTQ rights is bound up with the civil rights and human rights of all people, across town and across the globe.
The Supreme Court decision, when it happens later this year, is quite likely going to set off an argument within the Republican Party -- or, at the very least, that subset of the party who are running for president.
Consumer and financial protection laws are wonderful when passed, but the key is to get them enforced. Government agencies have limited budgets for enforcement and political pressure often prevents government agencies from targeting lawbreaking companies.
Religious fundamentalism is alive and well in the Supreme Court, and abortion rights are an endangered species. The interesting thing is that the terms "abortifacient," "Obamacare mandate," "accommodation," "buffer zone" or "contraceptive" were all unknown at the time of the Constitution.